What is the significance of the Apocrypha?

For Christians and Jews, these books represent a continuation of sacred
writings in the Jewish community up until Christ came. They paint a
picture of the cultural and religious mindset in Judaism before the
appearance of Christianity. They set the scene for the coming of Jesus
and help the reader to relate to the social and religious context Jesus
found in Israel.

Malachi was written in approximately 450 BC. Scholars have established
that Daniel was probably the last book of the Hebrew Canon to be
written. The Book of Daniel is dated to about 167 BC. This is a
significant historical gap leading up to the New Testament. Malachi and
Daniel were in a world dominated by the Persians. When Jesus arrived,
the Roman Empire was in control of the Holy Land. The working language
of the known world in Jesus’ day was Greek. The Pharisees and Sadducees,
objects of Jesus’ criticism, came into being as Religious influences
between Daniel’s writing and Jesus’ ministry.

In the fourth century AD Christians started to question the authenticity
and inspiration of writings and letters in the Septuagint. Pope Damasus
hired a biblical scholar, Jerome, who placed these apocryphal works
under a separate heading in his original translation. It was only in
1546 that the Council of Trent officially accepted these books for the
Roman Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches
accept different combinations of these books as scripture.

Martin Luther did not accept these books as inspired although he did
consider them worth reading. The original King James translation of 1611
became the Authorized Version of the English speaking world. In 1615,
George Abbott, one of the KJV translators, issued a directive that all
Bibles bound and sold had to include the Apocrypha. It is difficult to
come by today unless you specifically look for it in a Catholic Bible or
request a separate publication of the Apocrypha.

With the Old Testament canon closing with Malachi at about 397 B.C., we
see that this period between Malachi and Matthew covers some four
hundred years. This four hundred year interval has been called "the dark
period" of Israel's history in pre-Christian times, because during it
there was neither prophet nor inspired writer.

1. THE PERSIAN PERIOD (536 - 333 B.C.)
2. THE GREEK PERIOD (333 - 323 B.C.)
3. THE EGYPTIAN PERIOD (323 - 204 B.C.)
4. THE SYRIAN PERIOD (204 - 165 B.C.)
5. THE MACCABEAN PERIOD (165-63 B.C.)
6. THE ROMAN PERIOD (63 B.C. onward)

I am sure others are interested in the Malachi-Matthew time period.

Rainbow, very interesting read.

A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament
and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and
correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come
down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth
century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or
transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third
and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our
era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal,
may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

B. The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and
afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among
the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to
introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most
suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

C. The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the
time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed
in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised
it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in
regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical
writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the
case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and
writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and
Gothic versions. It was held tin high esteem by all, some even believed
it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a
perfect understanding of these literatures.

D. At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek
Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were
made from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the
Vetus Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in
it, the Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the
pronunciation given to the Hebrew text, passed very frequently into the
Itala, and from it, at times, into the Vulgate, which not rarely gives
signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala; this is especially so in the
Psalms, the Vulgate translation being merely the Vetus Itala corrected
by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint Version is first mentioned in a letter of Aristeas to his
brother Philocrates. Here, in substance, is what we read of the origin
of the version. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, King of Egypt (287-47 BC) had
recently established a valuable library at Alexandria. He was persuaded
by Demetrius of Phalarus, chief librarian, to enrich it with a copy of
the sacred books of the Jews. To win the good graces of this people,
Ptolemy, by the advice of Aristeas, an officer of the royal guard, an
Egyptian by birth and a pagan by religion, emancipated 100,000 slaves in
different parts of his kingdom. He then sent delegates, among whom was
Aristeas, to Jerusalem, to ask Eleazar, the Jewish high-priest, to
provide him with a copy of the Law, and Jews capable of translating it
into Greek. The embassy was successful: a richly ornamented copy of the
Law was sent to him and seventy-two Israelites, six from each tribe,
were deputed to go to Egypt and carry out the wish of the king. They
were received with great honor and during seven days astonished everyone
by the wisdom they displayed in answering seventy-two questions which
they were asked; then they were led into the solitary island of Pharos,
where they began their work, translating the Law, helping one another
and comparing translations in proportion as they finished them. At the
end of seventy-two days, their work was completed, The translation was
read in presence of the Jewish priests, princes, and people assembled at
Alexandria, who all recognized and praised its perfect conformity with
the Hebrew original. The king was greatly pleased with the work and had
it placed in the library.

Despite its legendary character, Aristeas' account gained credence;
Aristobulus (170-50 B.C.), in a passage preserved by Eusebius, says that
"through the efforts of Demetrius of Phalerus a complete translation of
the Jewish legislation was executed in the days of Ptolemy"; Aristeas's
story is repeated almost verbatim by Flavius Josephus (Ant. Jud., XII,
ii) and substantially, with the omission of Aristeas' name, by Philo of
Alexandria (De vita Moysis, II, vi). the letter and the story were
accepted as genuine by many Fathers and ecclesiastical writers till the
beginning of the sixteenth century; other details serving to emphasize
the extraordinary origin of the version were added to Aristeas's
account" The seventy-two interpreters were inspired by God (Tertullian,
St. Augustine, the author of the "Cohortatio ad Graecos" [Justin?], and
others); in translating they did not consult with one another, they had
even been shut up in separate cells, either singly, or in pairs, and
their translations when compared were found to agree entirely both as to
the sense and the expressions employed with the original text and with
each other (Cohortatio ad Graecos, St. Irenæus, St. Clement of
Alexandria). St. Jerome rejected the story of the cells as fabulous and
untrue ("Praef. in Pentateuchum";"Adv. Rufinum", II, xxv). likewise the
alleged inspiration of the Septuagint. Finally the seventy two
interpreters translated, not only the five books of the Pentateuch, but
the entire Hebrew Old Testament. The authenticity of the letter, called
in question first by Louis Vivès (1492-1540), professor at Louvain (Ad
S. August. Civ. Dei, XVIII, xlii), then by Jos. Scaliger (d. 1609), and
especially by H. Hody (d. 1705) and Dupin (d. 1719) is now universally
denied.

Criticism

(1) The letter of Aristeas is certainly apocryphal. The writer, who
calls himself Aristeas and says he is a Greek and a pagan, shows by his
whole work that he is a pious, zealous Jew: he recognizes the God of the
Jews as the one true God; he declares that God is the author of the
Mosaic law; he is an enthusiastic admirer of the Temple of Jerusalem,
the Jewish land and people, and its holy laws and learned men.

(2) The account as given in the letter must be regarded as fabulous and
legendary, at least in several parts. Some of the details, such as the
official intervention of the king and the high priest, the number of the
seventy-two translators, the seventy-two questions they had to answer,
the seventy-two days they took for their work, are clearly arbitrary
assertions; it is difficult, moreover, to admit that the Alexandrian
Jews adopted for their public worship a translation of the Law, made at
the request of a pagan king; lastly, the very language of the Septuagint
Version betrays in places a rather imperfect knowledge both of Hebrew
and of the topography of Palestine, and corresponds more closely with
the vulgar idiom of Alexandria. Yet it is not certain that everything
contained in the letter is legendary, and scholars ask if there is not a
historic foundation underneath the legendary details. Indeed it is
likely -- as appears from the peculiar character of the language, as
well as from what we know of the origin and history of the version --
that the Pentateuch was translated at Alexandria. It seems true also
that it dates from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and therefore from
the middle of the third century B.C. For if, as is commonly believed,
Aristeas's letter was written about 200 B.C., fifty years after the
death of Philadelphus, and with a view to increase the authority of the
Greek version of the Law, would it have been accepted so easily and
spread broadcast, if it had been fictitious, and if the time of the
composition did not correspond with the reality? Moreover, it is
possible that Ptolemy had something to do with the preparation or
publishing of the translation, though how and why cannot be determined
now. Was it for the purpose of enriching his library as Pseudo-Aristeas
states? This is possible, but is not proven, while, as will be shown
below, we can very well account for the origin of the version
independently of the king.

(3) The few details which during the course of ages have been added to
Aristeas's account cannot be accepted; such are the story of the cells
(St. Jerome explicitly rejects this); the inspiration of the
translators, an opinion certainly based on the legend of the cells; the
number of the translators, seventy-two (see below); the assertion that
all the Hebrew books were translated at the same time. Aristeas speaks
of the translation of the law (nomos), of the legislation (nomothesia),
of the books of the legislator; now these expressions especially the
last two, certainly mean the Pentateuch, exclusive of the other Old
Testament books: and St. Jerome (Comment. in Mich.) says: "Josephus
writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the five books of Moses
were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to King Ptolemy."
Besides, the versions of the various books of the Old Testament differ
so much in vocabulary, style, form, and character, sometimes free and
sometimes extremely literal, that they could not be the work of the same
translators. Nevertheless, in spite of these divergencies the name of
the Septuagint Version is universally given to the entire collection of
the Old Testament books in the Greek Bible adopted by the Eastern
Church.

JESUS KILLS

I wonder what it looked like originally. Are the books of the Bible in
the right order? Is there a real timeline? Why the missing four hundred
years? I mean if you were reading a magazine and a big chunk of it was
missing wouldn't that upset you? Sorry but you can tell we used to have
a outdoor Johnny growing up.

St. Jerome
Born at Stridon, a town on the confines of Dalmatia and Pannonia, about
the year 340-2; died at Bethlehem, 30 September, 420.

He went to Rome, probably about 360, where he was baptized, and became
interested in ecclesiastical matters. From Rome he went to Trier, famous
for its schools, and there began his theological studies. Later he went
to Aquileia, and towards 373 he set out on a journey to the East. He
settled first in Antioch, where he heard Apollinaris of Laodicea, one of
the first exegetes of that time and not yet separated from the Church.
From 374-9 Jerome led an ascetical life in the desert of Chalcis,
south-west of Antioch. Ordained priest at Antioch, he went to
Constantinople (380-81), where a friendship sprang up between him and
St. Gregory of Nazianzus. From 382 to August 385 he made another sojourn
in Rome, not far from Pope Damasus. When the latter died (11 December,
384) his position became a very difficult one. His harsh criticisms had
made him bitter enemies, who tried to ruin him. After a few months he
was compelled to leave Rome. By way of Antioch and Alexandria he reached
Bethlehem, in 386. He settled there in a monastery near a convent
founded by two Roman ladies, Paula and Eustochium, who followed him to
Palestine. Henceforth he led a life of asceticism and study; but even
then he was troubled by controversies which will be mentioned later, one
with Rufinus and the other with the Pelagians.

Wow, finding books that I didn't know existed before that St. Jerome
took out. The Canticles of Canticles, Osee, Paralipomena, Chronicle of
Eusebius, Abdias.